Individual Investors, Average Skewness, and Market Returns

Understanding individual investors’ short-term behavior toward skewness is essential for the management and investment of corporate social responsibility because the skewness-seeking behavior of individual investors, which causes a bubble in the market, makes the market as a whole more vulnerable, and it is difficult for the market to be sustainable. In the Korean stock market, we investigated whether average skewness can predict future market returns at the market level and whether the mispricing is associated with demand for the skewness of individual noise traders. Measuring the demand for skewness by the proportion of trading money of individual investors, we found that average skewness negatively predicts future market excess return when the demand for skewness is strong. The result is robust to controlling for market variance as well as other predictors. Our finding indicates that the overall market is overpriced when individual investors excessively trade to seek huge returns in spite of a small probability

Is Low-Volatility Investing Sustainable in the SME Stock Market of Korea? A Risk and Return Analysis

This study examines the risks and profitability of low-volatility investing in the Korean Securities Dealers Automated Quotations (KOSDAQ) market during the 2001–2017 period. We chose the KOSDAQ market because noise trading is dominant and stocks are likely to be mispriced. We, therefore, expected that low-volatility investing could generate robust profits on the KOSDAQ market, unlike investing on the KOSPI market. Our empirical results support our prediction. Several risk metrics also indicated that this strategy can be implemented in practice. Furthermore, our findings suggest that the idiosyncratic volatility anomaly can be magnified by the mispricing effects of noise trading

An Empirical Study on the Relationship between Corporate Social Responsibility and Default Risk: Evidence in Korea

Focusing on the Korean stock market, this paper expands on previous research on the relationship between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and default risk. By using a comprehensive sample of 6977 firm-year observations during the 2011–2021 period, we employ the year fixed effects and industrial sector dummies classified by FnGuide Industry Classification Standard to control for shifting economic conditions over time and effects within industries. The Z-score is employed as the primary proxy for default risk, and the finding of the study confirms a negative association between CSR practices and default risk. Moreover, testing the three components of CSR, we also find that each component has a negative impact on the default risk. To ensure the robustness of our findings, we conduct a robustness check using two additional proxies of default risk: the K-score, a specific measure of default risk for the Korean market, and the distance to default (DTD), a market-based model. Our results remain consistent and robust even when utilizing alternative proxies, further confirming the negative relationship between CSR and default risk. This has significant implications for businesses and regulators who aim to decrease the risk of default through implementing CSR initiatives

Which Corporate Social Responsibility Performance Affects the Cost of Equity? Evidence from Korea

This study analyzes the effect of corporate social responsibility activities on the cost of equity in Korea. We find that firms with better corporate social responsibility (CSR) performance generally exhibit cheaper equity financing. Considering three dimensions of CSR separately, we find that a higher “socially responsible management” significantly reduces the cost of equity by 1.13%-1.37% per annum and “Corporate governance” activity also marginally affects the cost of equity, while “environmental management” has no impact. Our result is robust in controlling for systematic risk, size, leverage ratio, and the number of analysts. These results imply that enhancing socially responsible management and corporate governance can increase firm value in Korea, but environmental management is not relevant for firm values. Putting differently, investors tolerate a lower return from firms with more CSR activities, because they expect them to provide sustainable incomes. Future researches can extend our approach to examining the effect on the cost of debt and cost of capital

An Empirical Analysis of Bitcoin Price Jump Risk

Given that there are both continuous and discontinuous components in the movement of asset prices, existing asset pricing models that assume only continuous price movements should be revised. In this paper, we explore the features of jumps, which are discontinuous movements, by examining Bitcoin pricing. First, we identify jumps in the Bitcoin price on a daily basis, applying a non-parametric methodology and then break down the Bitcoin total rate of return into a jump rate of return and a continuous rate of return. In our empirical analysis, price jumps turn out to be independent of volatility. Moreover, the jumps in the Bitcoin price do not appear at regular intervals; rather, they tend to be concentrated in clusters during special periods, implying that once an economic crisis occurs, the crisis will last for a long time due to contagion effects and the economy will take a considerable amount of time to recover fully. Further, the contribution of the jump rate of return to the total rate of return of the Bitcoin price is lower than the contribution of the continuous return, implying that the pursuit of sustainable returns rather than large but temporary returns will improve the total rate of return over the long term. Finally, more jumps are observed when trading volume is lower, implying that market illiquidity drives discontinuous movement in asset prices. Overall, the features of jump risk are like two sides of the same coin and jump risks are expected to have a significant effect on asset pricing, suggesting that consideration of jumps is essential for risk management as well as asset pricing

Predictability of OTC Option Volatility for Future Stock Volatility

This study explores the information content of the implied volatility inferred from stock index options in the over-the-counter (OTC) market, which has rarely been studied in the literature. Using OTC calls, puts, and straddles on the KOSPI 200 index, we find that implied volatility generally outperforms historical volatility in predicting future realized volatility, although it is not an unbiased estimator. The results are more apparent for options with shorter maturity. However, while implied volatility has strong predictability during normal periods, historical volatility is superior to implied volatility during a period of crisis due to the liquidity contraction of the OTC options market. This finding suggests that the OTC options market can play a role in conveying important information to predict future volatility

Sustainability Managed against Downside Risk and the Cost of Equity: Evidence in Korea

This study examines the relationship between sustainability managed against downside risk and the cost of equity in the Korean stock market during the 2000⁻2016 period. We employ downside co-skewness and downside beta as a measure of downside risk, to analyze the cross-sectional relationship between them and average portfolio stock returns. We have also carried out Fama⁻MacBeth regressions to find the required return for bearing downside risk. The results show that downside co-skewness can be used more effectively than downside beta to explain a cross-section of stock returns or cost of equity. The required premium for bearing downside risk, as measured by downside co-skewness, is approximately 19% per annum in the Korean stock market. This finding suggests that sustainable companies can raise their capital in the form of equity at 19% lower costs, and also implies that increasing sustainability can reduce the cost of capital

Premiums for Non-Sustainable and Sustainable Components of Market Volatility: Evidence from the Korean Stock Market

The study investigates the premiums expected for non-sustainable and sustainable components of market volatility in Korea during the August 1991 to December 2018 period. We decompose market volatility into non-sustainable and sustainable components and construct the factors that mimic the two respective components of market volatility. The portfolio analysis and Fama-MacBeth regressions reveal that both short- and long-term components are negative pricing factors in the Korean stock market. Specifically, stocks with higher sensitivities to the long-term volatility factor have lower average annual returns by approximately 14%, than stocks with lower sensitivities. This implies that stocks with high sensitivity to sustainable volatility provide a hedging opportunity against future uncertainty, and thus, investors are willing to pay an annual premium of 14% for such stocks. Our results are robust to variations in samples and methods

Institutional Investors’ Trading Response to Stock Market Anomalies: Evidence from Korea

This study examines whether institutions are sophisticated investors that exploit stock characteristics known to predict future returns in Korea, using data from 2000 to 2018. We analyze the institutional demand, measured as a change in institutional ownership, for stocks with eight well-known anomalies as well as the future abnormal returns of institutional trading. We find that, generally, institutions do not trade consistently with stock anomaly predictions because they are reluctant to hold both highly overvalued and highly undervalued stocks. Although they use a few anomalies, they use these characteristics passively to avoid stocks known to underperform rather than to pick stocks known to outperform. Furthermore, the positive returns on long-legs are concentrated on stocks sold by institutions, while the negative returns on short-legs are concentrated on stocks bought by them. Our finding casts doubt on the widely-accepted notion that institutions are skilled investors and that institutional arbitrage trading corrects any mispricing in the market. To the contrary, institutions’ loss-averse trading behaviors cause or magnify mispricing